Garland v. VanDerStok

IS A WEAPON PARTS KIT A FIREARM?

Merrick Garland, Attorney General, et al., (“government”) argues that the 2022 Rule is consistent with the GCA’s “firearm” definition, which includes weapons “which may readily be converted” into a firearm. Brief for Petitioners, Merrick B. Garland et al., (“government”) at 22. The government contends that many weapon parts kits can “readily be converted” into firearms because the kits contain all the necessary parts for someone to quickly assemble a functional firearm without special training. Id. at 22–23. As an example, the government asserts that one would consider an IKEA kit to be furniture because each kit contains all the necessary parts to build furniture. Id. at 18–19. The government asserts that the 2022 Rule follows the logic of multiple Supreme Court decisions prohibiting the circumvention of the GCA by misinterpreting the GCA’s provisions. Id. at 42, 44. According to the government, the rise in availability and illegal use of ghost guns constitutes the most recent individual effort to circumvent the GCA. Id. The government stresses that Congress did not intend for felons, minors, and others prohibited from owning firearms to be able to circumvent the record-keeping and background check requirements set by the GCA. Id. at 41. Further, the government asserts that the 2022 Rule necessarily amends the GCA to prevent individuals from easily evading the GCA’s restrictions and to enable the ATF to regulate firearms as Congress intended. Id. The government observes that courts have previously considered certain collections of weapon parts to be firearms under the GCA, highlighting a Fifth Circuit decision where the court held that a disassembled shotgun was a firearm because the parts could easily and quickly be reassembled into a functional firearm. Id. at 25–26. The government further contends that the 2022 Rule is not vague, but instead creates a qualitative standard that considers “real-world” facts. Id. at 47–48. The government also highlights that courts have rejected vagueness claims regarding the GCA’s regulation of weapons that “may readily be converted” into functional firearms. Id. at 48. Further, the government notes that the 2022 Rule adds more clarity to the GCA than was previously available by providing a list of factors that would make a weapon readily convertible. Id. The government also argues that terms like “assembled” and “completed” fit naturally within the meaning of “convert” because all three words describe a change from one form to another. Id. at 20. Lastly, the government notes that the GCA considers some products to be both weapons and non-functioning firearms because of their readily convertible nature, such as certain starter guns, and contends that weapon parts kits are similarly convertible. Id. at 29.

VanDerStok counters that the 2022 Rule is inconsistent with the GCA’s “firearm” definition because the GCA requires a product to already be a weapon to be considered a firearm. Brief for Respondents, Jennifer VanDerStok et al., (“VanDerStok”) at 34. VanDerStok contends that the government overstates how easily a layperson can convert certain weapon parts kits into functional firearms. Id. at 29. VanDerStok also highlights that weapon parts kits do not include all the parts necessary to create a functional firearm. Id. at 38. To elaborate, VanDerStok contrasts weapon parts kits with IKEA furniture kits which do include all the parts necessary to construct furniture. Id. VanDerStok also contends that the ATF’s statement regarding the necessity of the 2022 Rule to address new public safety concerns conflicts with the ATF’s claim that the 2022 Rule codified prior ATF practice. Id. at 24. VanDerStok asserts that Congress created the GCA to balance governmental interests in regulating commercial firearm sales; not to burden private use of and noncommercial sales of firearms. Id. at 41–42. On this same point, VanDerStok argues that only Congress, not the ATF, may alter this balance to address shortcomings in the GCA and recent trends in firearm usage. Id. VanDerStok also asserts that court decisions treating disassembled firearms as regulable firearms differ from the 2022 Rule’s treatment of weapon parts kits as regulable firearms because disassembled firearms have all the parts necessary to build a firearm, including a frame or receiver. Id. at 37. VanDerStok additionally argues that the ATF’s interpretation of “may readily be converted” is too vague to give potential defendants fair notice that they are violating the law. Id. at 40. Lastly, VanDerStok observes that the meanings of “convert,” “assembled,” and “completed” all require an item to change from one form to another, concluding that a frame or receiver component that must change to become a frame or receiver cannot, therefore, be both a component and a complete product. Id. at 20.

THE REGULATION OF FRAMES AND RECEIVERS

The government argues that the most natural way to read the GCA’s use of “frame” or “receiver” is to include frames and receivers missing a part or component. Brief for Petitioners at 32. The government contends that frames or receivers that are only missing one or two parts necessary for them to be functional are still frames and receivers, just like a bicycle missing its pedals is still a bicycle. Id. The government contends that the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of the GCA would allow individuals to circumvent the GCA’s background check and serialization requirements by purchasing weapon parts kits to construct their own functional firearms. Id at 43. The government contends that ATF practice, dictionary definitions of the relevant terms, and common sense indicate that no grievous ambiguity exists in the GCA; thus, courts are prohibited from using the rule of lenity or the constitutional-doubt canon to analyze the GCA. Id. at 45–46. The government asserts that the 2022 Rule is consistent with ATF precedent which treated partially completed frames as firearms when an individual could use regular hand tools to make the frame functional. Id.

VanDerStok counters that the ATF’s expanded definition of frame or receiver, which includes parts “designed to” become a frame or receiver, does not fall within the natural meaning of the statute. Brief for Respondents at 20. VanDerStok maintains that a bicycle without pedals can only still be a bicycle if it has reached a “critical stage of manufacture,” while the weapon components that the 2022 Rule considers to be complete frames and receivers have not reached that critical stage of manufacture. Id. at 28. VanDerStok observes that the GCA explicitly regulates weapons that “may readily be converted” into firearms but includes no such language for frames or receivers, indicating that Congress never intended for the GCA to permit the ATF to regulate parts that can be readily converted into frames or receivers. Id. at 21. VanDerStok contends that although weapon parts kits and frame and receiver components clearly fall outside of the GCA “firearm” definition, the Court could also use the rule of lenity to reach the same conclusion should the Court find that the GCA is ambiguous. Id. at 41. VanDerStok also argues that the 2022 Rule improperly renders the GCA’s language of “readily be converted” to be broader than the language of the National Firearm Act (“NFA”), where Congress added the term “readily restored” in its prohibition of converting weapons into machineguns and short-barreled shotguns in order to cover both readily convertible weapons and weapons missing firing pins. Id. at 21–22.